Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

3 minutes ago, theJ said:

I feel it's the opposite.  Those who wish things would stay closed until we find a vaccine are in for a rude awaking. 

pretty sure there’s not a person on earth that wants that.

[theJ]

2 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

pretty sure there’s not a person on earth that wants that.

There appear to be some in this very thread.  Well, they at least claim that.  I think you're right though - no one really truly wants that.  As cruel as this sounds, it's an outlandish price for humanity to pay to save 1% of the population.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

Just now, theJ said:

There appear to be some in this very thread.  Well, they at least claim that.  I think you're right though - no one really truly wants that.  As cruel as this sounds, it's an outlandish price for humanity to pay to save 1% of the population.

I suppose that depends mightily on whether or not you are one of that 1% 

[theJ]

Just now, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I suppose that depends mightily on whether or not you are one of that 1% 

Oh for sure.  And like i said, i know that sounds cruel.  But the ramifications of a significant portion of our population not working for a year or more is far worse than 1% of the population dying.  Like i said, the governments can only print money for relief for so long.  At some point that money is worthless when it can't buy you food, shelter or water.

Which is why i say no one really wants everything to be shut down for a year.  At some point, and that point is different for everyone, people will admit that they'd rather just take the chance.

[WizeGuy]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41423-020-0426-7

 

I only read the tl;dr version of this study, but it's extremely promising. We have the potential the mass produce antibodies. Definitely going to keep an eye on this going forward.

 

But I do wonder costs and how long it will take to become available...

Edited April 21, 2020 by WizeGuy

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

9 minutes ago, theJ said:

Oh for sure.  And like i said, i know that sounds cruel.  But the ramifications of a significant portion of our population not working for a year or more is far worse than 1% of the population dying.  Like i said, the governments can only print money for relief for so long.  At some point that money is worthless when it can't buy you food, shelter or water.

Which is why i say no one really wants everything to be shut down for a year.  At some point, and that point is different for everyone, people will admit that they'd rather just take the chance.

I think the other side you’re referring to, which I’m part of, wants to see things rolled out a bit more cautiously and with comprehensive measures in place.

We touched on it a bit yesterday, but movie theaters need to manage seating (remove seats, disinfect, etc), gyms need x amount of dedicated staff whose only job is sanitation, etc.  I think salons/barbershops should require face masks, same with massages, and we just don’t have the PPE to do that right now.

Starting by reopening business that are lower risk (retail stores for example) and seeing how it goes and gradually opening the rest is what I would prefer.  

[theJ]

1 hour ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I think the other side you’re referring to, which I’m part of, wants to see things rolled out a bit more cautiously and with comprehensive measures in place.

We touched on it a bit yesterday, but movie theaters need to manage seating (remove seats, disinfect, etc), gyms need x amount of dedicated staff whose only job is sanitation, etc.  I think salons/barbershops should require face masks, same with massages, and we just don’t have the PPE to do that right now.

Starting by reopening business that are lower risk (retail stores for example) and seeing how it goes and gradually opening the rest is what I would prefer.  

That's what makes the most sense.  Roll things out cautiously, enforcing PPE, and educating people how to be as safe as they can.

[naptownskinsfan]

2 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I think the other side you’re referring to, which I’m part of, wants to see things rolled out a bit more cautiously and with comprehensive measures in place.

We touched on it a bit yesterday, but movie theaters need to manage seating (remove seats, disinfect, etc), gyms need x amount of dedicated staff whose only job is sanitation, etc.  I think salons/barbershops should require face masks, same with massages, and we just don’t have the PPE to do that right now.

Starting by reopening business that are lower risk (retail stores for example) and seeing how it goes and gradually opening the rest is what I would prefer.  

I brought up a lot of those points.  Also, for retail stores, making sure that you have staffing at the front door to manage people coming in and out so you aren't overrunning the capacity of the store for social distancing.  What a lot of the essential businesses are doing, non-essential businesses will have to do to make sure that they are following social distance guidelines.  People will get tired of this soon, but that's what we have to do to be able to re-open at this time.  

[diehardlionfan]

2 hours ago, theJ said:

There appear to be some in this very thread.  Well, they at least claim that.  I think you're right though - no one really truly wants that.  As cruel as this sounds, it's an outlandish price for humanity to pay to save 1% of the population.

One thing about a crisis is that people, over time, will show their true colours. By that I mean it shows peoples compassion, empathy, selfishness, and what’s important to them.

No one asked for this and no one wants to see people experience hardship but so far most are only suffering economic hardship and frankly, at this point that should be the least of anyone’s concern.

This virus has gone through multiple mutations with more to come, no doubt. We have absolutely zero data and statistics about post recovery damage to people. We saw some early reports out of China but information coming out of China has basically been locked down. The only information coming out of China is Government approved. In some areas we have seen post recovery kidney failure, 30% loss of pulmonary function and heart damage. So to suggest it’s only protecting 1% of the population is only considering deaths amongst seniors and those with underlying conditions. It gives no consideration to any other aspect of the virus. 

Many countries have had a terrible response to this not only in protective gear, testing equipment etc, but the data sharing has been terrible and many jurisdictions simply don’t have the resources to collect, study and disseminate meaningful information. We know Chinas data is flawed. We see some countries that aren’t even conducting meaningful testing or tracking, 

Sweden is ridiculous with their lack of testing. You can make the curve do anything you want by simply limiting testing. India isn’t even at a starting point with testing. Mexico, Brazil etc, same thing.

Its discouraging to see elected officials without any concept of infectious diseases making statements while ignoring the top medical advice in the world.

It really shows that people are selfish and only concerned about their own agendas. Regardless opening up to soon is meaningless if people don’t have confidence. Restaurants, bars, theatres can’t open with social distancing and reduced capacity. Find me a business in hospitality that can break even by reducing tables, seats etc. by 50%. Most businesses can’t pay their overhead with those levels of reduced capacity. So opening simply to incur debt isn’t a viable option either.

This likely won’t end well and it will be because of human stupidity. The U.S. and Canada have always been plagued by short term thinking and the absence of long term planning. It’s the nature of democracy and one of the reasons our countries were unprepared for this virus. It shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone that we would have a pandemic. I sat only planning committees 15 years ago but preparation for emergencies doesn’t get votes so politicians don’t care.

As for your last comment 👀

 

 

 

[diehardlionfan]

3 minutes ago, naptownskinsfan said:

I brought up a lot of those points.  Also, for retail stores, making sure that you have staffing at the front door to manage people coming in and out so you aren't overrunning the capacity of the store for social distancing.  What a lot of the essential businesses are doing, non-essential businesses will have to do to make sure that they are following social distance guidelines.  People will get tired of this soon, but that's what we have to do to be able to re-open at this time.  

Most businesses, can’t stay in business operating at reduced capacity. Most retailers were in trouble before this began and I don’t see them being profitable by having limits on shoppers. We also have to consider that many additional people have been forced into online shopping. Only time will tell if those customers adopt the change permanently.

[vikesfan89]

5 minutes ago, diehardlionfan said:

Most businesses, can’t stay in business operating at reduced capacity. Most retailers were in trouble before this began and I don’t see them being profitable by having limits on shoppers. We also have to consider that many additional people have been forced into online shopping. Only time will tell if those customers adopt the change permanently.

If people want to go to the stores that limit capacity I imagine they'd have to pay a higher price

[naptownskinsfan]

1 minute ago, diehardlionfan said:

Most businesses, can’t stay in business operating at reduced capacity. Most retailers were in trouble before this began and I don’t see them being profitable by having limits on shoppers. We also have to consider that many additional people have been forced into online shopping. Only time will tell if those customers adopt the change permanently.

And that's the thing- people will adapt and overcome.  Some businesses will be forced to close, that part is for sure.  However, I already see some restaurants in my area that are selling bulk produce and meats, where there aren't any supermarkets.  For downtown Annapolis residents, many who use public transportation, it is impractical to shop in bulk every two weeks, so these places have started selling as markets.  Someone is going to come up with a great way to be the "middle man" for supermarkets and delivery to the older population and make it easy for them.  Supermarkets will continue to push more online and curbside pickup.  Most fast food is going to have to adapt Chick-fil-A's procedures and staffing levels to run efficient drive-thru operations as many people won't be coming inside anymore.  

I don't know about what stores you are talking about, but a lot of places can scale at least the staffing portion of things to meet the needs of the business they have on hand.  That's the specific thing I mentioned about movie theaters and removing seats.  If you are serving less people, you need less staff on the floor, simple as that.  My job has it's busy period over the summer and November/December being in a mall, so I have to scale up and down accordingly, sometimes depending on weekly events.  If businesses want to stay open, those that can adapt, will do it.  Some will fall away, and others will come up and take it's place. 

[theJ]

17 minutes ago, diehardlionfan said:

As for your last comment 👀

 

You bring up a lot of good points.  And for now, yea, we're talking about some minor to moderate economic issues.

My post is geared toward the comment that we must wait another 12-18 months in isolation while we wait on a vaccine.  1% of the population dying would kind, compared to the consequences of that non-action.  There absolutely has to be a middle ground that allows us to go back to work in some capacity.  A different capacity for sure, but some capacity none-the-less.

The government issuing money to people is nice in the short term.  But it doesn't actually make anything useful.  The people still need to produce goods and services for that money to buy.  In other words, what good is $1000 if there isn't a loaf of bread to buy with it?

[TVScout]

On 4/20/2020 at 10:14 AM, TVScout said:

We tested all our patients for coronavirus — and found lots of asymptomatic cases

Our New York City labor and delivery unit found 88 percent of infected patients had no symptoms

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/04/20/we-tested-all-our-patients-covid-19-found-lots-asymptomatic-cases/

 

Pregnant women. 

Estrogen? Progesterone? 

 

This article might be free:

Quote

Does Covid-19 Hit Women and Men Differently? U.S. Isn’t Keeping Track  Scientists studied the plasma of 331 confirmed coronavirus patients and found that in the most severe cases, women had a higher level of antibodies than men. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/03/us/coronavirus-male-female-data-bias.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_NN_p_20200421&instance_id=17817&nl=morning-briefing&regi_id=127802529&section=backStory&segment_id=25631&te=1&user_id=0ec3b530f45ff5c070e34ae9b6fc8ea1

[TVScout]